Welcome To Trump World

[Richard]

And as usual you cannot even have a simple discussion without your bullshit,grow up.

They were charged under the IRPA just like it says.

The two Mexican men were transferred to Canada Border Services Agency custody after their arrest.

So why would they not keep them in regular police custody?

From your own link

They were sentenced in Abbotsford provincial court for possessing property obtained by crime and for two immigration-related offences – failure to appear to determine right to enter Canada, and failing to answer questions truthfully.


You posted the issue of the firearm etc. and they would have just been deported anyways if not for the matter of.

Other charges were stayed, including possession of a prohibited firearm, importing/exporting a firearm and illegally possessing ammunition.

So like it reads,2 immigration charges, possession of stolen property.

The illegally entering and lied to border patrol,if it was not based the illegal entry they would have never turned them over to border services.

Nice of you to post a link that you did not comprehend,so as usual your bullshit is based on what you think and not what actually happened.

[Canadian Visitor]

And as usual you cannot even have a simple discussion without your bullshit,grow up.

They were charged under the IRPA just like it says.

The two Mexican men were transferred to Canada Border Services Agency custody after their arrest.

So why would they not keep them in regular police custody?

From your own link

They were sentenced in Abbotsford provincial court for possessing property obtained by crime and for two immigration-related offences – failure to appear to determine right to enter Canada, and failing to answer questions truthfully.


You posted the issue of the firearm etc. and they would have just been deported anyways if not for the matter of.

Other charges were stayed, including possession of a prohibited firearm, importing/exporting a firearm and illegally possessing ammunition.

Nice of you to post a link that you did not comprehend,so as usual your bullshit is based on what you think and not what actually happened.

I reported exactly what happened.

You can't comprehend your own name or which way is up.

Now stop!

You got caught trying to lie to people again, by posting things that were misleading.

If the charge was straight immigration related they would have been straight deported.

Also had they asked for refugee status, shortly after arriving, and had they not been guilty of any other offense, they would have had a hearing.

They didn't get one, cause they didn't ask for one.

There's no BS in that.

That's the facts, the truth, the only way it is, and not the way you made it out to be.

Unlike you I read the article before commenting.

[Richard]

So where in the article that you posted did you read that they did not ask for a hearing,you are just adding things.

Bottom line,they snuck into the country and were charged with it on two counts,you saying that they would have just been deported otherwise is speculation on your part.

If Canada did not enforce its border laws like you portray it to,then they would have never been charged with the immigration counts,just the stolen items,jailed or charged and deported,if that was standard procedure.

The immigration laws appears to have a higher priority and sentence then the weapon and ammunition.

So they were charged and jailed according to a scale of the worst offense,Illegal entry.

Maybe you should try your,Just Stop,theory.

Under Canadian law, it is illegal to attempt to get into Canada at places outside an official border crossing. However, Section 133 of the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act makes an exception for asylum seekers.

However, those who enter the country illegally and don’t make an asylum claim are not covered by Section 133 of the IRPA and could be charged, Dench told Yahoo Canada News.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/can-illeg...233919300.html

The release of a stateless man who was held without charges by Canadian immigration authorities for six years has prompted renewed criticism of a system in which asylum seekers and other immigrants can be held indefinitely.

Canada is among the few countries in the world to rely on an immigration detention system with no upper limits.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tion-detention

It would appear as if it is not standard practice of catch and release in Canada when immigration officials can hold illegals indefinitely even in max prisons,without being charged.

Like I posted,we should change our laws to those similar to Canada’s approach.

[Canadian Visitor]

If Canada did not enforce its border laws like you portray it to,then they would have never been charged with the immigration counts,just the stolen items,jailed or charged and deported,if that was standard procedure.

The more serious charges would have meant keeping them for longer at our expense instead of deporting them.

The lesser charges were chosen for expediency.

They were made examples of [[prison) for the non-immigration offenses.

Under Canadian law, it is illegal to attempt to get into Canada at places outside an official border crossing. However, Section 133 of the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act makes an exception for asylum seekers.

However, those who enter the country illegally and don’t make an asylum claim are not covered by Section 133 of the IRPA and could be charged, Dench told Yahoo Canada News.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/can-illeg...233919300.html

Amazing this is correct, it corroborates what I said earlier and contradicts what you said, and you didn't notice........... LOL

I'm amused that you imagine you know Canadian law well enough to quote it to me............

The release of a stateless man who was held without charges by Canadian immigration authorities for six years has prompted renewed criticism of a system in which asylum seekers and other immigrants can be held indefinitely.

Did you bother reading why he was held so long?

No country would agree to take him back.

It would appear as if it is not standard practice of catch and release in Canada when immigration officials can hold illegals indefinitely even in max prisons,without being charged.

Yes, this does happen, though relatively rarely. The case you cited is one, in which no country would agree to take him back.

The other I can think of involved a case of man who couldn't prove who he was or where he was from and despite years of investigation, he seemed to have lived his whole life off-the-radar.

Suffice to say, it is not routine practice.

A judge also ordered the man in the case you cited released, albeit after a very long stay in detention.

Canada does, however, routinely let people out pending a refugee hearing, so long as they are deemed likely to attend and a low-risk to the public.

Like I posted,we should change our laws to those similar to Canada’s approach.

So you want to increase by a factor of 15 the number of refugees the United States takes in, and you want to drastically increase legal immigration as well, and make it easier to obtain a work VISA if your a foreigner.

Good to know.

[Richard]

Incarceration of Illegals is rare?

One third of immigration detainees are still held in prisons, including individuals with mental health conditions; there is no maximum limit to the length of detention; children may be “housed” in detention facilities to prevent the separation of families; Canada is one of only a handful of countries with a mandatory detention policy, which includes detention for up to 12 months with no judicial review; and anti-terrorism provisions in its immigration legislation have been used to detain and deport foreign nationals on secret evidence.

https://www.globaldetentionproject.o...going-concerns

Funny how our court system ruled children cannot be housed in detention centers with their parents and there is a term limit on how long they can be housed period,definitely not up to a year like Canada.

Held in prisons not comfy detention centers.

I can post more but one gets the jist of it,like I said,I wish we would take the same stance as Canada when it comes to immigration enforcement and what is allowed.

Your asylum seekers approval adverage is 8%,about the same as ours.

Only about 8% of their asylum application have been approved, however, meaning the vast majority have been turned down and are being deported straight back to their home countries.

"People seem to think that if they cross the border there's this land of milk and honey on the other side," Boissonnault said from the Canadian consulate in Miami on Thursday. "What we want is for people to have the right information. We want them to do the right thing for their families."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...der/683297002/

Canada is not as easy to illegally enter and start as you make it out to be.

It is like any other country,everything has its consequences.

[Canadian Visitor]

Canada is not as easy to illegally enter and start as you make it out to be.

It is like any other country,everything has its consequences.

At no point have I suggested it is easy to get into Canada, in terms of legally immigrating or obtaining refugee status.

This is your problem, you're unsatisfied w/the facts so you make your own up.

What I have identified is that the examples you provided in terms of punishment were misleading and did not represent how a typical case would be handled, in the context of someone actually applying as a refugee [[whether they applied from within or outside of Canada).

We do indeed deport people, lots of them. We also bar entry to many others, as you would know.

But we also accept more, in proportionate terms than most other developed nations.

Asylum is a specific sub-category of refugees.

Canada often grants refugee status to people while they are still in a foreign country, as we did w/many Syrians.

The issue here is not good or bad policy or countries.

Its getting the facts correct so that a thoughtful discussion can be had.

[Richard]

You keep harping on providing facts,everything I posted included a link to back it up,you choosing not to believe them does not make them non factual.

If you were following along,the discussion was about if in the US a illegal crossing the border was considered breaking the law,if a misdemeanor is considered breaking the law,and if being in the country illegally was considered in ecessence breaking the law x 2.

I simply posted we should institute some of the Canadian laws as more of a deterrent,then I posted some of the concquenses of entering Canada illegally that we should visit in our plans.

The ability to imprison for an undetermined amount of time.
The placeing of families together in jail so they are not separated.
Once caught in the country using jail time for immigration offenses before deportation.

Bascialy illeagls do not have the same rights in Canada like they do in this country.

In other words provide real consequences for illegal actions verses the preferred catch and release and providing sanctuary and encouragement of illegals.

You keep harping about how voilence ratios of illegals is irrelevant in contrast,over 300,000 illegals currently incarcerated for felonies and continueing to break the laws of this country after entering illegally.

They are still entitled to legal representation,meals,clothing,medical etc. which costs money.

Citizen incarnations when released have a chance to be productive members of society and repay their debt,illegals no,they will finish their time and be deported,sneak back in and break the law again.It is a waste of resources.

You see a lot of cases where they were deported 5 times before and they still keep coming back in.

[Canadian Visitor]

You keep harping on providing facts,everything I posted included a link to back it up,you choosing not to believe them does not make them non factual.

Incorrect. The links were fine. They were misleading however, and did not prove the point you were trying to make.

You can post a citation from anywhere you like that says anything, and it might even be true. But when your citation says "Canada has red apples" And you use that to say Canada has no green apples, you'd be wrong. The citation is correct, the use of it is incorrect and it does not support your argument.

If you were following along,the discussion was about if in the US a illegal crossing the border was considered breaking the law,if a misdemeanor is considered breaking the law,and if being in the country illegally was considered in ecessence breaking the law x 2.

Clearly you were not following as that is not what the discussion was about. It was whether or not illegals, once in the United States pose any greater danger of criminal behavior than do native-born Americans. As clearly established the answer is no.

The discussion was not centered on whether it was illegal to cross the border. Self-evidently that is true.

There was a rather semantic sub-thread about whether or not illegal and criminal are the same thing. The answer to that is clearly no. That you and some others are challenged to make that distinction is your problem not mine or anyone else's.

Its also beside the point.

I simply posted we should institute some of the Canadian laws as more of a deterrent,then I posted some of the concquenses of entering Canada illegally that we should visit in our plans.

What you did is take the way Canada handles SOME illegal immigrants and applied that to ALL illegal immigrants.

That is not reasonable or factual.

Moreover, it does not bear on whether a wall would be remotely helpful in deterring illegal immigration or any of its undesirable side effects.

The ability to imprison for an undetermined amount of time.
The placeing of families together in jail so they are not separated.

First part is highly misleading, second is true, but not a common issue.

Further, Canada's government, under scrutiny has actually agreed to curtail the use of detention substantially.

Once caught in the country using jail time for immigration offenses before deportation.

Misleading. The use of detention is selective, not normative.

Further, it is not for the immigration offense, it is to ensure you will show up for your hearing or for deportation.

They are still entitled to legal representation,meals,clothing,medical etc. which costs money.

You are entitled to many things you've never earned and don't deserve. [[sadly)

Those 'rights' [[of detainees) are a function of being detained.

Would you care to trade places with them?

Btw, you know we have 'Legal Aid' here and other provision to ensure people have access to counsel; we also feed detainees to, and we don't keep them naked either.....LOL

[Honky Tonk]

Incorrect. The links were fine. They were misleading however, and did not prove the point you were trying to make.

You can post a citation from anywhere you like that says anything, and it might even be true. But when your citation says "Canada has red apples" And you use that to say Canada has no green apples, you'd be wrong. The citation is correct, the use of it is incorrect and it does not support your argument.



Clearly you were not following as that is not what the discussion was about. It was whether or not illegals, once in the United States pose any greater danger of criminal behavior than do native-born Americans. As clearly established the answer is no.

The discussion was not centered on whether it was illegal to cross the border. Self-evidently that is true.

There was a rather semantic sub-thread about whether or not illegal and criminal are the same thing. The answer to that is clearly no. That you and some others are challenged to make that distinction is your problem not mine or anyone else's.

Its also beside the point.



What you did is take the way Canada handles SOME illegal immigrants and applied that to ALL illegal immigrants.

That is not reasonable or factual.

Moreover, it does not bear on whether a wall would be remotely helpful in deterring illegal immigration or any of its undesirable side effects.



First part is highly misleading, second is true, but not a common issue.

Further, Canada's government, under scrutiny has actually agreed to curtail the use of detention substantially.



Misleading. The use of detention is selective, not normative.

Further, it is not for the immigration offense, it is to ensure you will show up for your hearing or for deportation.



You are entitled to many things you've never earned and don't deserve. [[sadly)

Those 'rights' [[of detainees) are a function of being detained.

Would you care to trade places with them?

Btw, you know we have 'Legal Aid' here and other provision to ensure people have access to counsel; we also feed detainees to, and we don't keep them naked either.....LOL

What a great place to live! You should start a CanadaEH! website.

[Canadian Visitor]

Violations of border laws are crimes; either misdemeanors or felonies. We can stop there but did your information consider how many years illegal aliens have been in the Country vs. lifelong Americans?I don't have those statistics; maybe you do. If, for instance, the average illegal alien has been in the "U.S." for seven years and the average Americans has lived here 35 years, then your statistic is only valid if Americans commit 7x as many crimes per capita.

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't believe your idea works out mathematically.

You're trying to suggest a statistic of crime, per capita, per year of life in the United States.

But that isn't how crime is calculated for any American or any place in America, its a completely new statistic.

I also don't think there is any reason to believe it would change anything.

The existing statistic is not which in which ever crime ever committed by an American citizen is represented, but only crimes committed in the last year by illegal aliens are counted.

Rather it counts only those crimes that happened in a 12 months period, then examines who was convicted of them and their status.

There is no reason to conclude that the number would vary if it were a 50-year block statistic.

****

The other millions of illegal non-citizens, however, do pose a material risk. Unless you deny supply/demand, they drag down American wages, take jobs from Americans, and receive social service and educational resources dedicated to Americans requiring either more taxes or reduced services for American. No one claiming to be "green' should support the extra infrastructure and demands on mineral and food extraction that tens of millions of extra people require.

This is a much better argument basis than the crime rate one.

Though, its important to concede its limitations. For instance almost all illegal aliens pay property tax as its embedded in rent, if you don't pay it directly yourself.

Most all pay sales taxes [[assuming their state has one); and if they have a 'legal' job [[yes, they would be illegally employed in it) then payroll and income tax may still be paid in some cases.

Of course many will not pay the full suite of normally expected taxes, and will receive some range of public services; which is the better piece of this argument.

But again this is not a material risk to public safety. Its a material risk to economic well being.

I agree that it is. I oppose illegal immigration or for that matter legal immigration of low-skill workers in large volumes designed to suppress wages of that same group.

We're in completely agreement on that.

The issue is making the argument correctly.

Then using those facts to foster the most workable solution.

Bad facts, make for bad decision.

The threat from net new illegal immigration, for the moment is low.

To the extent it is an issue, it is mostly about those who enter legally and overstay their legal welcome.

The majority of illegal aliens have been in the United States for several years.

This is not resolved by construction of a wall.

They are already in the US, your walling them in!

Said wall also does nothing to affect the majority of on-going legal entry, illegal-overstay, taking place at airports, and to a lesser degree other legal ports-of-entry.

The evidence supports action, but not this action. [[the wall).

As a foreigner, I don't expect you to care about our Constitution but our Constitution says that naturalization law must be established by congress and must be uniform. One set of laws for legal aliens and another for illegal aliens is not uniform.

Not relevant. I agree there is a law. I agree there is a constitutional principle. I oppose illegal immigration..

I also oppose bad, ineffective public policy for show.

I also oppose poor rhetoric and bad arguments.

I favour good public policy that works, ideas that can be made to happen.

The wall changes nothing you care about, and worse claims are made to the contrary. That and its a poor use of dollars.

President Reagan gave amnesty to 3.6M illegal aliens to solve the problem once and for all in return for promises of border security. The promises were not kept. That didn't work. There are many options from imprisoning cheating employers to removing all health and educational freebees. The only thing on the table right now is a wall or fence and Democrats will not either meet the President half way on even a fence at half of Trump's $5.7B request so the government remains closed.

The amnesty didn't work last time, because it wasn't accompanied by measures that address the underlying issue.

Farms, construction companies, landscape companies etc. went right on hiring the same people they always had without change.

The incentive to break the law remained in place.

No matter one's party the propose reform needs to work.

That's why it must target the employer, not the border.

If someone arrives in the US illegally or becomes illegal by way of overstaying their welcome, they should be unemployable.

Problem solved.

When that's the proposal before Congress, it will have my full and unreserved backing.

[Canadian Visitor]

What a great place to live! You should start a CanadaEH! website.

As usual, you have nothing useful to contribute.

Why not just sit in a corner quietly and say nothing?

You do realize that Richard brought up Canada, not I?

I simply answered him.

Of course you didn't, that would have involved reading and comprehension, two skills you have yet to show any aptitude for.

I'm content not to insult you; its easily managed.

Just say nothing.

Or alternately, surprise the entire world and say something intelligent. Either would do.

[Honky Tonk]

As usual, you have nothing useful to contribute.

Why not just sit in a corner quietly and say nothing?

You do realize that Richard brought up Canada, not I?

I simply answered him.

Of course you didn't, that would have involved reading and comprehension, two skills you have yet to show any aptitude for.

I'm content not to insult you; its easily managed.

Just say nothing.

Or alternately, surprise the entire world and say something intelligent. Either would do.

I don't think it would take much to surprise someone who sits all day on a foreign website spewing half hidden insults. But I should be more sympathetic. It appears you don't have much of a personal life.

[oladub]

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't believe your idea works out mathematically.

You're trying to suggest a statistic of crime, per capita, per year of life in the United States.

But that isn't how crime is calculated for any American or any place in America, its a completely new statistic.

I also don't think there is any reason to believe it would change anything.

The existing statistic is not which in which ever crime ever committed by an American citizen is represented, but only crimes committed in the last year by illegal aliens are counted.

Rather it counts only those crimes that happened in a 12 months period, then examines who was convicted of them and their status.

There is no reason to conclude that the number would vary if it were a 50-year block statistic.

****




This is a much better argument basis than the crime rate one.

Though, its important to concede its limitations. For instance almost all illegal aliens pay property tax as its embedded in rent, if you don't pay it directly yourself.

Most all pay sales taxes [[assuming their state has one); and if they have a 'legal' job [[yes, they would be illegally employed in it) then payroll and income tax may still be paid in some cases.

Of course many will not pay the full suite of normally expected taxes, and will receive some range of public services; which is the better piece of this argument.

But again this is not a material risk to public safety. Its a material risk to economic well being.

I agree that it is. I oppose illegal immigration or for that matter legal immigration of low-skill workers in large volumes designed to suppress wages of that same group.

We're in completely agreement on that.

The issue is making the argument correctly.

Then using those facts to foster the most workable solution.

Bad facts, make for bad decision.

The threat from net new illegal immigration, for the moment is low.

To the extent it is an issue, it is mostly about those who enter legally and overstay their legal welcome.

The majority of illegal aliens have been in the United States for several years.

This is not resolved by construction of a wall.

They are already in the US, your walling them in!

Said wall also does nothing to affect the majority of on-going legal entry, illegal-overstay, taking place at airports, and to a lesser degree other legal ports-of-entry.

The evidence supports action, but not this action. [[the wall).



Not relevant. I agree there is a law. I agree there is a constitutional principle. I oppose illegal immigration..

I also oppose bad, ineffective public policy for show.

I also oppose poor rhetoric and bad arguments.

I favour good public policy that works, ideas that can be made to happen.

The wall changes nothing you care about, and worse claims are made to the contrary. That and its a poor use of dollars.


The amnesty didn't work last time, because it wasn't accompanied by measures that address the underlying issue.

Farms, construction companies, landscape companies etc. went right on hiring the same people they always had without change.

The incentive to break the law remained in place.

No matter one's party the propose reform needs to work.

That's why it must target the employer, not the border.

If someone arrives in the US illegally or becomes illegal by way of overstaying their welcome, they should be unemployable.

Problem solved.

When that's the proposal before Congress, it will have my full and unreserved backing.

Illegal immigration is still, by dictionary definition, a "crime" subject to removal from the U.S.. We can't set that aside. 100% of illegal non-citizens are criminals. There is no way Americans can top that percentage. I have never seen any information about what percentage of illegal aliens fail to register for the draft either. I don't support the draft but if American males get punished for not registering, it is a constitutional double standard not to count not registering as another crime for illegal non-citizens. Illegal aliens who are here between ages 18-26 must register. If they don't register before turning 26, they cannot do so later. They cannot later amend their crime, are subject to imprisonment and stiff fines, and are no longer elligable for U.S. citizenship. I have never heard of illegal non-citizens being punished for not registering.

One recent estimate is that the average illegal alien, every man woman and child, costs U.S. taxpayers $70,000 largely because so many are unskilled and consequently do not pay much taxes. This is in line with a government study showing the average middle-east refugee costs taxpayers an average of $13,500/year for each of their first five years here and higher costs in Germany, over $18,000/year and Norway, over $22,000 year. Of course, if we cut the quality of schools and other services provided Americans, taxpayers won't have to have to come up with the full $70,000.

42% of illegal aliens are here because of overstays. Walls won't help that but the only thing on the table is a wall or fence. Democrats do not have proposed legislation to drastically reduce overstays. When and if Democrats do, perhaps it could be negotiated to reduce the cost of fencing. Meanwhile, the government is closed pending negotiation and compromise on the part of Democrats.

[Bham1982]

I don't think it would take much to surprise someone who sits all day on a foreign website spewing half hidden insults. But I should be more sympathetic. It appears you don't have much of a personal life.

Yes, because breathlessly posting absurd Russian propaganda and supremacist drivel would indicate someone "has a personal life"; refuting such brain-dead ridiculousness obviously indicates the opposite...

[Bham1982]

100% of illegal non-citizens are criminals.

This a lie, no matter how many times you claim it to be true.

Melania is not a criminal and will not be deported, even if she was in the U.S. illegally, a civil violation.

[Richard]

This a lie, no matter how many times you claim it to be true.

Melania is not a criminal and will not be deported, even if she was in the U.S. illegally, a civil violation.

Your First Lady should be an inspiration to all immigrants,follow a legal path and the possibility’s are unlimited.

In other news newly elected republican governor of Fla is pushing to require all Florida businesses to utilize the E-Verify system.

It is opposed by the Hotel,tourism and construction industries.

It is easy to require but one still needs to acquire the funding in order to implement,millions towards the gift that keeps on giving with illegal immigration.

[Richard]

Yes, because breathlessly posting absurd Russian propaganda and supremacist drivel would indicate someone "has a personal life"; refuting such brain-dead ridiculousness obviously indicates the opposite...

Is that kinda like breathlessly calling everybody that you oppose a Russian troll or a racist?

[Bham1982]

Your First Lady should be an inspiration to all immigrants,follow a legal path and the possibility’s are unlimited.

Yes, quite an "inspiration", arriving illegally, doing "adult" photo sessions, then commuting fraud in her visa application, now joined to America's first family of criminals and grifters, with current husband under FBI investigation for colluding with the Kremlin and on fast track to federal prison. What more could a Russian troll ask for?

In other news newly elected republican governor of Fla is pushing to require all Florida businesses to utilize the E-Verify system.

No, that would be campaign propaganda for the ignorant, long since forgotten. There's no E-Verify planned in Florida. Zero chance of it happening, especially with a Trump Cult stooge in office and state dependent on tourism.

[Bham1982]

Is that kinda like breathlessly calling everybody that you oppose a Russian troll or a racist?

Hits a bit close to home, I see? Don't worry, I'm sure there are some "very fine people" at your rallies.

[Richard]

Hits a bit close to home, I see? Don't worry, I'm sure there are some "very fine people" at your rallies.

Not really,if we wanted to hit close to home with you,we would be discussing the scam of the best and brightest visa lottery.

Hate to break it to you,but illegals and tourism in Florida have been here long before Trump and unless the wall is built,it will be here long after he is no longer your president 6 years from now.

Your favorite Rallys would be people wearing white hoods and black face masks demanding the government provide everything free and workers make the same as the CEOs where everybody works for the collective,so what does that make you?

[Bham1982]

Not really,if we wanted to hit close to home with you,we would be discussing the scam of the best and brightest visa lottery.

Brilliant. The toddler-level "I know you are but what am I" logic is truly breathtaking.

Hate to break it to you,but illegals and tourism in Florida have been here long before Trump and unless the wall is built,it will be here long after he is no longer your president 6 years from now.

Um, I guess Russia lacks Google maps? Newsflash: Mexico doesn't border Florida. A wall has nothing to do with illegals in Florida, Florida has few Mexicans and Miami is far south of the Mexican border.

Yes, you're right that Florida will always have illegals and tourism, long after Trump leaves prison [[which of course completely invalidates your previous argument, but whatever).

Your favorite Rallys would be people wearing white hoods and black face masks demanding the government provide everything free and workers make the same as the CEOs where everybody works for the collective,so what does that make you?

I enjoy rallies where Trump cultists apparently advocate for a Soviet revival? Bizarre world you've constructed.

[Richard]

A wall does not effect Florida?

What do do you think they do,jump the border and pitch a tent alongside,they migrate,that is kinda why they call them illegal immigrants.

That is that mentality of,the border does not effect me because I do not live next to it,but everybody pays for it one way or another.

[Honky Tonk]

Yes, because breathlessly posting absurd Russian propaganda and supremacist drivel would indicate someone "has a personal life"; refuting such brain-dead ridiculousness obviously indicates the opposite...

You sound in a worse disarray then usual Bham, everything Ok @ home? Beemer running Ok?

[Canadian Visitor]

You sound in a worse disarray then usual Bham, everything Ok @ home? Beemer running Ok?

As usual, no substance, no actual criticism in the thoughtful sense of the word. Mere, mindless mockery.

[coracle]

^ Only 17 words? Obviously you’re word “constipated”. Take one Dictionary every 24 hours and stay in bed until the Canadian Dollar reaches par with real money. EH?